The-Source.com

No, that’s not quite right.

What it’s all about is the most recent example of Microsoft apparently violating the GPL; this time found out by a “Within Windows” blogger. This news is well covered in many blogs, but Steven J. Vaughn-Nichols comes the closest to touching on the point I find the most interesting.

First, let’s look at some of the points people are making:

Microsoft is violating the GPL

This is nothing new or surprising. To be fair, I don’t think it’s malicious on the part of Microsoft – it’s more of an error of embarassment.

Microsoft uses open source

Again, nothing new or surprising. Microsoft likes to make a bunch of noise about how open source-friendly they are now-a-days anyway. Of course, I don’t buy into that beyond an acceptance of necessity on Microsoft’s part.

Here’s the point that I find the most interesting, and that most commentators are not picking up on: this is just another example of Microsoft’s absolute incompentance in the area of Open Source. Which puts the lie to the entire idea of the Microsoft Codeplex Foundation being any sort of “driver” in the Open Source area.

That fact of the matter is that Microsoft lacks the experience, credibility or expertise to be any sort of “driver” in the Open Source space, but the Microsoft Codeplex Foundation is a way for Microsoft to basically buy itself into the driver’s seat. Once there, I expect to see a ton of messaging attempting to shape thought around Open Source in a direction Microsoft finds acceptable.

If you like mirror analogies, it would be like RMS setting up the Proprietary Software Foundation, and him going around saying that he really wants to balance the “needs of proprietary software with the interests of freedom”.

Laughable, right?

Why is it laughable? Well, one reason is that  RMS has always been honest and straight-forward about his position, so people would not accept him heading up the PSF. Microsoft, on the other hand, not so straightforward. Microsoft can’t come straight out and tell users they only want computers used in a way Microsoft approves and has been paid for, and in fact stand directly opposed to user freedom, because it represents a potential lost sale to Microsoft.

So, why would people accept such a foolish scenario in one direction and not the other?